Madras High Court
D.Ravichandran vs G.N.Baskaran on 2 July, 2025
2025:MHC:2323
S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 04.04.2025
Pronounced on : 02.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014
D.Ravichandran ... Appellant/Appellant/
1st Defendant
Vs.
1.G.N.Baskaran
2.G.N.Ravichandran ... 1st & 2nd Respondents/
Respondents/ Plaintiffs
3.I.Sabapathy ...3rd Respondent/Respondent/
2nd Defendant
PRAYER :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to setaside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.210 of 2011, dated
24.09.2013 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Madurai (Melur Camp),
confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Melur, dated 10.12.2010 and amended decree, dated
12.10.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Vallinayagam
R3 : Ex-parte
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm )
S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed in A.S.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai (Melur camp), confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2010 and amended decree, dated 12.10.2011, passed in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
2. The appellant is the first defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the second respondent is the second defendant in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
3. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the power of attorney deed, dated 03.10.2002 in favour of the second defendant and that the sale deed, dated 28.11.2002 in favour of the first defendant are not binding on the plaintiffs and for directing the first defendant to hand over the documents mentioned in 'A' schedule and for permanent injunction. 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
5. Case of the plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit property from one S.P.Maharajan, son of Pandyamabalm and others under registered sale deed, dated 29.06.1990.
The first plaintiff was entitled to 2/3rd share and the second plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs and their mother, Pushpam, had run a partnership oil store in the name of Vignesh Corporation under cash credit facility of Rs.3,00,000/- from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Madurai. They executed a memorandum of deposit title deeds in respect of 'A' schedule property with the bank. As the partnership ended in loss, the bank filed a suit in O.S.No.609 of 2001 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. The first defendant is known to the plaintiffs for more than a decade, so the first plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the first defendant during 1998. At the time of borrowing the loan, the first defendant forced the plaintiffs to sign blank promissory notes and unfilled blank stamp papers. Later in order to grab the plaintiffs’ property, the first defendant demanded the first plaintiff to execute sale deed by creating forged sale 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 agreement by using signed unfilled blank stamp papers. The first plaintiff took the issue to the District Crime Branch Police, Madurai and the first defendant was advised to act as per law. In the month of May 2003, the first defendant with henchmen came to the suit property and attempted to trespass into the same, which was prevented. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants created a forged power of attorney, dated 03.10.2002, forging the signatures of the plaintiffs in favour of the second defendant, who in turn executed sale deed, dated 28.11.2002, in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant collected title deeds from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank in collusion with the bank manager. Hence, the first plaintiff lodged a police complaint against the defendants and the bank manager.
In the meanwhile, the second plaintiff conveyed his 1/3 share in favour of the first plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.
6. Case of the Defendant:
The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has undervalued the suit property and paid the incorrect court-fee. The averment that the first defendant is known to the plaintiffs for more than a decade is correct, but the first defendant is doing money lending business is incorrect. The first plaintiff never borrowed Rs.6 lakhs from the first defendant and the first defendant never got signed pronotes and 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 stamp papers from the plaintiff forcibly. The first defendant arranged loans with 3rd parties as the plaintiff's business met losses. The first defendant purchased the suit property from the plaintiff through his power of attorney, Sabapathy, the second defendant herein, for Rs.4,26,000/-. The said Sabapathy was given power for redeeming the mortgage loan availed by the plaintiffs from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank out of sale proceeds. The plaintiffs gave a letter to the bank to release the documents to Sabapathy. So the bankers are necessary parties.
The allegation that the power of attorney, dated 03.10.2002 and the subsequent sale deed are also fraudulent one are false. The alleged gift deed, dated 30.09.2005, by the second plaintiff and his mother is false. The first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from his purchase in 2002, since the plaintiffs approached the first defendant to sell his property due to loss in their business. After the closure bank suit, the first defendant received the original documents from the plaintiffs in March 2003. The plaintiffs knew very well about the purchase of the first defendant on 28.11.2002 and also the withdrawal of the bank suit on 04.02.2003. But in order to grab property, the plaintiffs fraudulently made an averment that he came to know the transaction during May 2003.5/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
7. The District Munsif, Melur, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation?
(2) Whether the valuation of suit relief and payment of Court fee is correct?
(3) Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this case?
(4) Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of proper and necessary party?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled tot the relief of declaration in respect of registered power of attorney deed dated 03.10.2002 as prayed for?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of registered sale deed, dated 28.11.2002 as prayed for?
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for direction against the defendants in respect of 'A'' scheudle documents as prayed for?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
(9) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?
8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked 25 documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.25. The defendants examined two witnesses as D.W.1, D.W.2 and marked exhibits Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14. 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
9. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Melur, concluded that the suit is not barred by limitation and also is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party and concluded that the plaintiffs have proved that the power of attorney is forged one and the sale deed in favour of the first defendant is also fraudulent one, thereby, decreed the suit by passing judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2010.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.124 of 2006, the first defendant preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.210 of 2011 before the Subordinate Court, Melur. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both and after perusing the material records of the case, determined the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
(2) Whether the suit is properly valued and court fee paid correctly?
(3) As contended by the appellant, whether the suit is affected by non-joinder of proper and necessary party?
(4) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the declaratory relief with regard to the registered power of attorney dated 03.10.2002 and registered sale deed dated 28.11.2002?7/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 (5) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the 'A''schedule documents?
(6) Whether the appeal is to be allowed or not?
11. On consideration of lower Court records and lower Court findings, the first Appellate Court decided that the suit is not barred by limitation and also the suit is properly valued and is not affected by non-joinder of party. The first Appellate Court further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs as prayed in the suit, so dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.210 of 2011 by passing judgment, dated 24.09.2013, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.124 of 2006.
12. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the the first defendant had preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been admitted on 10.10.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:-
i. Is not the suit for declaratory relief under prayer (i) & (ii) of the plaint is barred under Article 56 of the Law of Limitation?
ii. Is not the suit claim by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs in respect of power of attorney deed dated 03.10.2002 and the sale deed, dated 28.11.2002 have been properly valued as per the Tamil Nadu Court 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1955?
iii. Is not the respondents 1 and 2 have paid proper Court fee for prayer (iii) oft the plaint for return of documents as mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint under section 24(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1955?
iv. Whether the Courts below are right in relying on the opinion of the experts which is filed as 'secondary evidence' wherein the 'original documents' are well available?
v. Is not the suit is hit by 'non-joinder' of proper and necessary parties?
vi. When the findings of facts by the experts, recorded in the criminal case pertaining to the subject matter in issue under Ex.A.12 to A.20 become inadmissible as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not the decree and judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside? and vii. Is not the respondents 1 and2/plaintiffs have proved their absolute possession of the suit property on the date of the suit for seeking permanent injunction?
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant has argued that the suit itself is barred by limitation, but the Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence of both sides. The plaintiffs inconsistently averred in 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 the plaint that during the 1st week of May 2003, the first defendant's henchmen came to the suit property and then he stated that he came to know about the alleged execution of forged deed through Ex.A.4 - Encumbrance Certificate, dated 27.05.2003. Anyhow, the plaintiffs fixed the date of knowledge from 1st week of May, 2003, and the plaintiffs have preferred the suit on 01.06.2006. The plaintiffs had full knowledge of the sale to the first defendant even on 08.01.2003 when the Ex.B.2 - settlement memo was served on the plaintiffs’ counsel Mr.S.Nateshraja, who was examined as D.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also clearly deposed that they were having a cordial relationship with counsel. So, the evidence of D.W.2 is reliable evidence and ought to have been appreciated by the Courts below. In this respect, the learned counsel relied on the ruling reported in 2010 (4) CTC 427 (Tirupurasundari (died) and 3 Ors. vs. C.Nagarajan and 6 Ors.). When the counsel had knowledge, the party having engaged a counsel cannot plead ignorance of the same, and in this aspect, the learned counsel relied on ruling reported in 2013 (4) CTC-1 (DB) (G.Subbammal vs. Ramani, Commissioner, Karur Municipality) of this Court. Moreover, the plaintiffs purchased Rs.10 stamps on 25.04.2003 for obtaining certified copies of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6, which bears the date’ 25 April 2003. So, the plaintiffs have knowledge of forgery on 25.04.2003. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed within April 2006. 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 The Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically puts an embargo on Courts to entertain a suit if it is found to be barred by limitation by relying on citation reported in 2008 (3) CTC 541 ( Lachhman Singh (Deceased) through LRs and Ors. vs. Hazara Singh (Deceased) through LRs and Ors.). The plaintiffs have sought prayer for declaration of instrument as null and void. If it is so, the suit filed beyond three years is barred by limitation by relying on citation reported in 2016 (6) MLJ 286 (B.Raghumaran Rep. by his Power Agent, R.Bharathidasan vs. Ms.Pushpabai and Anr.).
14.1. The learned counsel further argued that the suit is valued at Rs.4,26,000/- and paid the Court fee thereon. According to Ex.A.15, the value of the suit property, as estimated by the plaintiffs, is Rs.15,00,000/- as per guideline value, whereas open market value is Rs.90,00,000/-. Moreover, P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the suit values Rs.3,00,000/- per cent. Therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, and the suit ought to have been dismissed as per the verdict reported in 2006 (4) ML J 285 (Chellakannu vs. Kolanji).
11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 14.2. The learned counsel further placed arguments that on the date of suit, the first plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit property, but he added second plaintiff, who has no title over the suit property, is unnecessary party. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant forged the documents in collusion with bank officials. So, the bank officials are necessary parties, but they have not been added as parties, hence, the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The Courts below have not considered these aspects.
14.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs’ case is that the plaintiffs borrowed a loan from the first defendant, at that time the first defendant obtained the plaintiff’s signature in Rs.100/- stamp paper, now the plaintiffs denied the signatures found in the power of attorney. In fact, the first defendant did know about the power of attorney. The plaintiffs alone approached the defendants and negotiated for sale of the suit property in the presence of the second defendant. Thus, the mode of execution of Ex.A.5 - power deed and the second defendant are only known to the plaintiffs. Moreover, the fingerprint report revealed that none of the thumb impressions were correlated with the thumb impression of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the said finding itself shows that the first defendant is no way concerned with the alleged forgery of documents. As per the contents of 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 Ex.A.16 and Ex.A.17, the signatures were taken before the Inspector of Police, not before the Judicial Magistrate. Even for a criminal case, the sample signature and thumb impression have to be taken in the presence of Judicial Magistrates. The finger print experts were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 and they have deposed inconsistent statements and their evidence is not corroborative of their findings as seen in Ex.A.12 to Ex.A.20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in 2010 (8) SCC 775 (Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs. vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors.) that the findings of fact recorded by the civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa. In the absence of originals, the comparison of photocopies and the opinion given cannot be relied on, and it creates doubt about the genuineness of expert report. The learned counsel relied on the citation in 2010 (6) SCC 1 (Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (Nct of Delhi).
14.4. The learned counsel lastly contended that after purchase of the first defendant, the patta was mutated in his name and he has been in possession of the suit property and paid kist till the current fasli year of suit. The first defendant substantiated his title and possession. But the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit property. Even from the alleged date of 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 knowledge of forged document, i.e., 27.05.2003, till the date of filing, the plaintiffs have not issued any legal notice to the defendants. The plaintiffs have not taken steps to send the document for expert opinion by filing specific petition. The plaintiffs are in the habit of executing sale agreements with third parties and subsequently cancelled the same, which is revealed from Ex.A.4 - encumbrance certificate. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiffs have not established their case, but the defendant has proved his case by let in acceptable evidences. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidences and committed an error in rendering findings against the defendants. In Second Appeal, the Hon’ble High Court can adjudicate the issue of declaration, under valuation and also computation of period limitation for cancellation of an instrument as reported in 2017 (2) CTC 309 (M.Panneerselvam vs. Susseela and 6 Ors.). Therefore, the Second Appeal may be allowed.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has vehemently argued that the Courts below have elaborately discussed about the limitation point and held that the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiffs came to know about the documents when the first defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property in 1st week of May 2003, and also from the encumbrance 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 certificate – Ex.A.4, dated 27.05.2003. The plaintiffs have to file suit within three years in May 2006. Since May 2006 was summer vacation for Courts, the plaintiffs have filed the suit on very reopening day of Courts ie., on 01.06.2006. But the defendants placed argument that the suit is barred by limitation, as if the suit was filed on 12.06.2006, mistakenly relying on the decree. The suit was presented on 01.06.2006. So, the suit is not barred by limitation. A party who impugns a document as a forgery is not obliged to sue for a declaration that it is a forgery, he can ignore the document and ask for substantial relief. In such cases, Article 56 would not apply. He relied on the citation reported in AIR 1960 AP 535 (Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Andra vs. Kasi Natukottai Nagara Chatram, Managing Society) in this aspect. He would further argued that the entry of the document in the registration office gives continuous cause of action, so there is no limitation for seeking the relief that the entry in respect of forged document is not binding on the plaintiff, so the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have clearly averred in the plaint that they had known of the documents only in May 2003. The appellant's contention that there is no proof of the plaintiffs' knowledge of documents is not acceptable. 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 16.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are not parties to the alleged documents ExA.5 and Ex.A.6, so there is no necessity arisen for them to seek for cancellation of documents. Those documents are only papers and have no legal effect. This is a settled proposition by various High Courts and the Supreme Court and relied on citations in AIR 1935 Madras 203 (Dasari Nagabhushanam vs. Kunameeni Venkatappayya), 2007 (2) LW 389 (K.Palaniswamy and Anr. vs. S.B.Subramani and Anr.), 1979 (2) MLJ 8 (Alamelu Alias Chinnakannammal and Ors. vs. Manickkammal) and 2006 (5) CTC 255 (Siddha Construction (P) Ltd., rep. by its Power Agent Anjay Sharma vs. M.Shanmgam and Ors.).
16.2. The learned counsel has further contended that the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the bankers, so they are not necessary parties. Hence, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that the defendants played fraud in creation of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6. Despite of notice, the defendants have not produced the original of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6, which would lead adverse inference, by relying on the rulings in AIR 1992 Madras 132 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 (A.S.Duraisami Chettiar Sons vs. S.Rathnaswami Gounder), AIR 1981 SC 977 (K.M. Patel v. Firm, Mohamadhussain Rahimbux) and 1994 (2) Civil Law Journal 114 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LR's and Ors.) The suppression of vital documents is fraud on the Court, and adverse inference can be drawn against such party. If really, Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not forged as contended by the defendants, they could come forward to produce the original of the same. When plea of forgery is taken, the defendants are bounden to prove the document is not forged and relied on the citation reported in AIR 2000 SC 1203 (Subhra Mukherjee and Anr. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.). The first defendant can very well about the second defendant, Sabapathy. The first defendant as DW1, has admitted that he paid the sale consideration to Sabapathy. So, the first defendant knew about Sabapathy, but denied it in this suit as he did not know about him purposely. Further, he attempted to accompany with Sabapathi at the time of Ex.A.25. The second defendant/Sabapathy is the puppet of the first defendant. The Courts below correctly appreciated the evidences adduced by both parties and correctly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings of the Courts below are concurrent one. Therefore, this Second Appeal may be dismissed. 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
17. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material records of the case and citations relied on by both sides. It is an admitted fact that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant created forged power of attorney - Ex.A.5 stands in the name of the second defendant, Sabapathy, and created Ex.A.6 - sale deed in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff states that he came to know about the said transactions in May 2003. According to Article 56, the period of limitation is three years. This three-year period begins from the date the instrument was issued, registered, or when there was an attempt to enforce it against the plaintiff. The plaintiffs averred and deposed that the defendants' men attempted to come to the suit property in 1st week of May 2003. The defendants' contention that Ex.A.6, the stamp paper Rs.10/- bears seal as "25 April 2003" would not help the defendants. Mere putting seal, could not mean that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the transaction. Ex.A.4 was received by him on 27.05.2003. The plaintiffs filed the suit on 01.06.2006 since summer vacation in May 2003. The explanation of the plaintiffs is acceptable. The Courts below elaborately discussed in respect of the point of limitation by considering rulings of High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and correctly held that the suit is not barred by limitation. This Court does not find any fault on the findings of the Courts below in this aspect. 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014
18.The first defendant mainly argued that Ex.A.5 - power of attorney was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the 2nd defendant, Sabapathy. Based on Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 sale deed was executed in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiffs claim that these documents are forged one. That being the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants must prove that those documents are not forged one. The first defendant's case is that Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are executed by the plaintiff in his favour and he is in possession of the originals of the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2413/2006, wherein it is held "When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”. The defendants have not produced the original of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 in spite of notice for production of the same was given. The first defendant has not chosen to examine the said Sabapathy to prove Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6. Moreover, the first defendant admitted that the plaintiffs lodged a police complaint regarding forgery and criminal case was tried. The first defendant as D.W.1, has clearly admitted that the forged documents were sent to an expert opinion wherein it is found that the signatures and thumb impression found therein is not that of the plaintiffs. The first defendant as D.W.1 has clearly admitted in his cross examination that he knew from expert opinion filed in criminal case that the signature and thumb impression of the plaintiffs is not found in Ex.A.5. So, as 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 rightly submitted by the plaintiffs' side, since the defendant has not come forward to produce originals of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 adverse inference could be drawn against the first defendant.
19. When the specific case of the Plaintiff is that he never signed in Ex.A.5 and it is proved by him upon the admission of D.W.1's cross examination, it is necessarily to be held that Ex.A.5 does not bear the signature of the plaintiffs and the same could be held as forged one. Admission is the best evidence, which does not need any other corroborative evidence. When Ex.A.5 does not bear the signature of the plaintiffs, it can be held that it will not bind on the plaintiff and hence, on the basis of Ex.A.5, the execution of Ex.A.6 is also not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Courts below correctly held that Ex.A.5 is forged one and also Ex.A.6, which is created on the basis of forged Ex.A5, is also to be held as forged one.
20. The next argument of the first defendant on the point of issuance of pre legal notice is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in various cases that in all cases pre legal notice cannot be expected. Non-sending pre legal notice will not defeat the right of the litigant in seeking the relief before the Court. Each and 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 every case has to be considered based on the pleadings and evidences in the respective cases. In other aspects, regarding non-joinder of parties, it is the liberty of the plaintiffs to choose the defendants according to the provisions of CPC, and there is no bar on the defendants to file the petition to implead the necessary party in the suit. The guideline value is meant for registration and stamp purposes. It is not mandatory to sell the property on the value of the guidelines to the seller. The value for sale consideration is fixed depending upon the necessity between the parties. The rulings relied on by the appellant/1st defendant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, whereas the citations relied on by the respondents/plaintiffs are squarely applicable to this case on hand. Therefore, in all these aspects, including the suit valuation and the Court fee paid, the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence adduced on both sides and gave findings. The evidence cannot be reappreciated by the High Court in the second appeal.
21. It is settled proposition of law that after giving concurrent findings given by the Courts below, as the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, except some exceptions, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Mohamed v. J.Kamala reported in (2020) 19 SCC 57, held as follows:
21/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 “33.4 The general rule is, that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where: (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence;
(ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly case the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” But, in this case, the concurrent findings of the Courts below do not fall in the above criteria. Both the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidences adduced on both sides and correctly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs established their case.
22. From the above facts and circumstances, the Courts below found concurrent finding based on the evidences adduced in the case. Concurrent findings could not be set aside unless the question of law decided favouring the appellant in the second appeal. The said findings need not be interfered by this 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 Court by way of second appeal. Hence, the questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the appellant/1st defendant. Thus, this second appeal fails.
23. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2013 passed in A.S.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai (Melur Camp), confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2010 and amended decree, dated 12.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court, Melur, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No VSD To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Madurai (Melur Camp)
2.The District Munsif Court, Melur.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014 02.07.2025 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm )